Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES The last decade has witnessed increased recognition of the value of literature reviews for advancing understanding and decision making. This has been accompanied by an expansion in the range of methodological approaches and types of review. However, there remains uncertainty over definitions and search requirements beyond those for the 'traditional' systematic review. This study aims to characterise health related reviews by type and to provide recommendations on appropriate methods of information retrieval based on the available guidance. METHODS A list of review types was generated from published typologies and categorised into 'families' based on their common features. Guidance on information retrieval for each review type was identified by searching pubmed, medline and Google Scholar, supplemented by scrutinising websites of review producing organisations. RESULTS Forty-eight review types were identified and categorised into seven families. Published guidance reveals increasing specification of methods for information retrieval; however, much of it remains generic with many review types lacking explicit requirements for the identification of evidence. CONCLUSIONS Defining review types and utilising appropriate search methods remain challenging. By familiarising themselves with a range of review methodologies and associated search methods, information specialists will be better equipped to select suitable approaches for future projects.

[1]  Kate Flemming,et al.  Guidance on choosing qualitative evidence synthesis methods for use in health technology assessments of complex interventions , 2016 .

[2]  Byron C. Wallace,et al.  #CochraneTech: technology and the future of systematic reviews. , 2014, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[3]  Claire Stansfield,et al.  Finding relevant studies , 2012 .

[4]  James Thomas,et al.  Bmc Medical Research Methodology Methods for the Synthesis of Qualitative Research: a Critical Review , 2022 .

[5]  Guy Paré,et al.  Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews , 2015, Inf. Manag..

[6]  M. Leeflang,et al.  Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews , 2013, Systematic Reviews.

[7]  Simon Briscoe,et al.  A review of the reporting of web searching to identify studies for Cochrane systematic reviews , 2018, Research synthesis methods.

[8]  K. Hannes,et al.  Synthesizing Qualitative Research: Choosing the Right Approach , 2012 .

[9]  G. Kitas,et al.  Writing a narrative biomedical review: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors , 2011, Rheumatology International.

[10]  S. Briscoe Erratum to: Web searching for systematic reviews: a case study of reporting standards in the UK Health Technology Assessment programme , 2015, BMC Research Notes.

[11]  L. Dennett,et al.  Utilisation of search filters in systematic reviews of prognosis questions. , 2012, Health information and libraries journal.

[12]  L. Preston,et al.  Improving search efficiency for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy: an exploratory study to assess the viability of limiting to MEDLINE, EMBASE and reference checking , 2015, Systematic Reviews.

[13]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[14]  S. Seuring,et al.  Conducting content‐analysis based literature reviews in supply chain management , 2012 .

[15]  Pierre Pluye,et al.  Performance of a mixed filter to identify relevant studies for mixed studies reviews. , 2016, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[16]  T. Greenhalgh,et al.  Understanding heart failure; explaining telehealth – a hermeneutic systematic review , 2017, BMC Cardiovascular Disorders.

[17]  Donna Ciliska,et al.  Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews , 2010, Implementation science : IS.

[18]  Marcia J. Bates,et al.  The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface , 1989 .

[19]  S. Oliver Advantages of concurrent preparation and reporting of systematic reviews of quantitative and qualitative evidence , 2015, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[20]  Alexa McArthur,et al.  Innovations in the systematic review of text and opinion , 2015, International journal of evidence-based healthcare.

[21]  M. Dixon-Woods,et al.  Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups , 2006 .

[22]  David C Hoaglin,et al.  Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. , 2011, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[23]  J. Chamova,et al.  European network for health technology assessment – EUnetHTA , 2013 .

[24]  David Atkins,et al.  AHRQ series paper 1: comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. , 2010, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[25]  Kate Flemming,et al.  Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 2: methods for question formulation, searching, and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis. , 2017, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[26]  A. Booth,et al.  A comparison of results of empirical studies of supplementary search techniques and recommendations in review methodology handbooks: a methodological review , 2017, Systematic Reviews.

[27]  J. Angus Webb,et al.  Simplifying the selection of evidence synthesis methods to inform environmental decisions: a guide for decision makers and scientists , 2017 .

[28]  C. Pope,et al.  Evaluating meta-ethnography: systematic analysis and synthesis of qualitative research. , 2011, Health technology assessment.

[29]  M. Foster From the Office of a Systematic Review Consultant , 2018, HERD.

[30]  A. Booth Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review , 2016, Systematic Reviews.

[31]  Andrew Booth,et al.  Supplementary search methods were more effective and offered better value than bibliographic database searching: A case study from public health and environmental enhancement , 2018, Research synthesis methods.

[32]  M. Farquhar,et al.  Support needs of patients with COPD: a systematic literature search and narrative review , 2018, International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

[33]  M. Leeflang,et al.  Search Filters for Finding Prognostic and Diagnostic Prediction Studies in Medline to Enhance Systematic Reviews , 2012, PloS one.

[34]  Zachary Munn,et al.  Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation , 2015, International journal of evidence-based healthcare.

[35]  Lisa Hartling,et al.  Same family, different species: methodological conduct and quality varies according to purpose for five types of knowledge synthesis. , 2017, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[36]  M. Clarke,et al.  Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions , 2011, BMC medical research methodology.

[37]  Neil Hawkins,et al.  How Far Do You Go? Efficient Searching for Indirect Evidence , 2009, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[38]  M. R. Harris The librarian's roles in the systematic review process: a case study. , 2005, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[39]  A. Booth,et al.  “Best fit” framework synthesis: refining the method , 2013, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[40]  David Moher,et al.  Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach , 2012, Systematic Reviews.

[41]  Andrew Booth,et al.  "Brimful of STARLITE": toward standards for reporting literature searches. , 2006, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[42]  A. Sutton,et al.  Searching for indirect evidence and extending the network of studies for network meta-analysis: case study in venous thromboembolic events prevention following elective total knee replacement surgery. , 2014, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[43]  Ray Pawson,et al.  RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses , 2013, BMC Medicine.

[44]  Mary Edmunds Otter,et al.  Developing the Librarians' Role in Supporting Grant Applications and Reducing Waste in Research: Outcomes From a Literature Review and Survey in the NIHR Research Design Service , 2017 .

[45]  Julie Nanavati,et al.  Realist Review: Current Practice and Future Prospects , 2016 .

[46]  N. Mutrie,et al.  The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of exercise referral schemes: a systematic review and economic evaluation. , 2011, Health technology assessment.

[47]  Jennifer A. Byrne Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews , 2016, Research Integrity and Peer Review.

[48]  D. Stannard,et al.  Chapter 2: Systematic Reviews of Qualitative Evidence , 2020, JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis.

[49]  Jennifer D'Souza,et al.  Knowledge synthesis methods for generating or refining theory: a scoping review reveals that little guidance is available. , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[50]  C. Mulrow The medical review article: state of the science. , 1987, Annals of internal medicine.

[51]  David Ogilvie,et al.  Pinpointing needles in giant haystacks: use of text mining to reduce impractical screening workload in extremely large scoping reviews , 2014, Research synthesis methods.

[52]  S. Oliver,et al.  Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ , 2012, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[53]  J. Higgins Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration , 2011 .

[54]  Julie Glanville,et al.  The loss of the NHS EED and DARE databases and the effect on evidence synthesis and evaluation. , 2017, Research synthesis methods.

[55]  Claes Wohlin,et al.  Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering , 2014, EASE '14.

[56]  Neal R. Haddaway,et al.  A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences , 2016, Environmental Evidence.

[57]  Andrew Booth,et al.  How much searching is enough? Comprehensive versus optimal retrieval for technology assessments , 2010, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[58]  Margarete Sandelowski,et al.  A Bayesian method for the synthesis of evidence from qualitative and quantitative reports: The example of antiretroviral medication adherence , 2009, Journal of health services research & policy.

[59]  Nila A Sathe,et al.  Searching for studies: a guide to information retrieval for Campbell systematic reviews , 2017 .

[60]  Margarete Sandelowski,et al.  The Challenges of Searching for and Retrieving Qualitative Studies , 2003, Western journal of nursing research.

[61]  Maria J Grant,et al.  A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. , 2009, Health information and libraries journal.

[62]  Ashley K Kable,et al.  A structured approach to documenting a search strategy for publication: a 12 step guideline for authors. , 2012, Nurse education today.

[63]  C. Willis,et al.  A time-responsive tool for informing policy making: rapid realist review , 2013, Implementation Science.

[64]  Christina Niederstadt,et al.  Reporting and presenting information retrieval processes: the need for optimizing common practice in health technology assessment , 2010, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[65]  Julie Glanville,et al.  Choosing and using methodological search filters: searchers' views. , 2014, Health information and libraries journal.

[66]  David R. Jones,et al.  Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods , 2005 .

[67]  R. Whittemore,et al.  The integrative review: updated methodology. , 2005, Journal of advanced nursing.

[68]  Anthea Sutton,et al.  Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review , 2012 .

[69]  A. Tricco,et al.  What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review , 2012, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[70]  Andrew Booth,et al.  Towards a methodology for cluster searching to provide conceptual and contextual “richness” for systematic reviews of complex interventions: case study (CLUSTER) , 2013, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[71]  Tari Turner,et al.  Living Systematic Reviews: An Emerging Opportunity to Narrow the Evidence-Practice Gap , 2014, PLoS medicine.

[72]  Monika Kastner,et al.  Conceptual recommendations for selecting the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to answer research questions related to complex evidence. , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[74]  Chorong Park,et al.  Methods for knowledge synthesis: an overview. , 2014, Heart & lung : the journal of critical care.

[75]  Claire Stansfield,et al.  Exploring issues in the conduct of website searching and other online sources for systematic reviews: how can we be systematic? , 2016, Systematic Reviews.

[76]  Pauline Campbell,et al.  Selecting and implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar overviews , 2017, Systematic Reviews.

[77]  Jonathan D. Eldredge,et al.  Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review , 2018, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[78]  S. Ananiadou,et al.  Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches , 2015, Systematic Reviews.

[79]  Ray Pawson,et al.  RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews , 2013, BMC Medicine.

[80]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[81]  Zachary Munn,et al.  What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences , 2018, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[82]  Jonathan B. Koffel Use of Recommended Search Strategies in Systematic Reviews and the Impact of Librarian Involvement: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Recent Authors , 2015, PloS one.

[83]  Margarete Sandelowski,et al.  Bayesian Approaches to the Synthesis of Qualitative and Quantitative Research Findings , 2012 .

[84]  P. Glasziou,et al.  Systematic review automation technologies , 2014, Systematic Reviews.

[85]  J. Kavanagh,et al.  Mixed Methods Synthesis: A Worked Example , 2012 .

[86]  Barbara Paterson,et al.  The Retrieval and Assessment of Primary Research , 2001 .

[87]  D. Moher,et al.  A scoping review of rapid review methods , 2015, BMC Medicine.

[88]  C. Cooper,et al.  How to get started with a systematic review in epidemiology: an introductory guide for early career researchers , 2013, Archives of Public Health.

[89]  H. Suri Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis , 2011 .

[90]  Karin Hannes,et al.  A move to more systematic and transparent approaches in qualitative evidence synthesis: update on a review of published papers , 2012 .

[91]  C. Terwee,et al.  Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments , 2009, Quality of Life Research.

[92]  David Moher,et al.  All in the Family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more , 2015, Systematic Reviews.

[93]  C. Bradbury‐Jones,et al.  An analysis of current practices in undertaking literature reviews in nursing: findings from a focused mapping review and synthesis , 2019, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[94]  Rachel Arnold,et al.  A research synthesis and taxonomic classification of the organizational stressors encountered by sport performers. , 2012, Journal of sport & exercise psychology.

[95]  P. Enck,et al.  Is the Impact of Starvation on the Gut Microbiota Specific or Unspecific to Anorexia Nervosa? A Narrative Review Based on a Systematic Literature Search , 2018, Current neuropharmacology.

[96]  Jane Noyes,et al.  A methodological systematic review of what’s wrong with meta-ethnography reporting , 2014, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[97]  Jill Barr-Walker,et al.  Evidence-based information needs of public health workers: a systematized review , 2017, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[98]  Kate Flemming,et al.  Synthesising quantitative and qualitative evidence to inform guidelines on complex interventions: clarifying the purposes, designs and outlining some methods , 2019, BMJ Global Health.

[99]  A. Harden,et al.  Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews , 2008, BMC medical research methodology.

[100]  David Moher,et al.  The art and science of knowledge synthesis. , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[101]  Laura A. Levit,et al.  Finding what works in health care : standards for systematic reviews , 2011 .

[102]  Sharon E. Straus,et al.  A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews , 2016, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[103]  Andrew Booth,et al.  Systematic searching for theory to inform systematic reviews: is it feasible? Is it desirable? , 2015, Health information and libraries journal.

[104]  Marko Ćurković,et al.  (Re)search Filter Bubble Effect-An Issue Still Unfairly Neglected. , 2020, Advances in nutrition.

[105]  Monika Kastner,et al.  A scoping review identifies multiple emerging knowledge synthesis methods, but few studies operationalize the method. , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.